The management of persistent physical symptoms poses a challenge in many healthcare settings, including primary care. Psychological treatments that involve exposure have shown promise for several conditions where patients suffer from persistent physical symptoms and unwanted responses to these. It is unclear, however, to what extent exposure therapy has effects beyond existing routine care interventions and who benefits the most.

A randomized controlled trial at a primary care center in Stockholm, Sweden compared 10 weeks of internet-delivered exposure therapy (n = 80) to healthy lifestyle promotion (HLP; n = 81) for patients bothered by at least one persistent physical symptom. The primary outcome was the mean reduction in subjective somatic symptom burden (Patient Health Questionnaire 15) as measured week-by-week up to the post-treatment assessment. Secondary outcomes included symptom preoccupation, anxiety, depression symptoms, and functional impairment.

Patients contributed 1544 datapoints during treatment. The primary analysis showed no significant advantage of exposure therapy versus HLP in the reduction of mean somatic symptom burden (d = 0.14; p = 0.220). In secondary analyses, exposure showed superiority in the reduction of symptom preoccupation (d = 0.31; p = 0.033) but not anxiety, depression symptoms, or functional impairment. A higher somatic symptom burden or symptom preoccupation before treatment was predictive of a larger advantage of exposure versus HLP.

Exposure therapy does not appear to show noteworthy average benefit over HLP, with the exception of symptom preoccupation. Substantial benefits are seen in patients with very high symptom burden or symptom preoccupation.

Symptoms related to chronic stress are prevalent and entail high societal costs, yet there is a lack of international consensus regarding diagnostics and treatment. A new stress-related diagnosis, exhaustion disorder, was introduced into the Swedish version of ICD-10 in 2005. Since then, use of the diagnosis has increased rapidly.

To create the first comprehensive synthesis of research on exhaustion disorder to report on the current state of knowledge. Preregistration: Open Science Framework (osf.io), doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/VFDKW.

A PRISMA-guided scoping review of all empirical studies of exhaustion disorder was conducted. Searches were run in the MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Web of Science databases. Data were systematically charted and thematically categorised based on primary area of investigation.

Eighty-nine included studies were sorted into six themes relating to lived experience of exhaustion disorder (n = 9), symptom presentation and course (n = 13), cognitive functioning (n = 10), biological measures (n = 24), symptom measurement scales (n = 4) and treatment (n = 29). Several studies indicated that individuals with exhaustion disorder experience a range of psychiatric and somatic symptoms beyond fatigue, but robust findings within most thematic categories were scarce. The limited number of studies, lack of replication of findings and methodological limitations (e.g. small samples and scarcity of specified primary outcomes) preclude firm conclusions about the diagnostic construct.

More research is needed to build a solid knowledge base for exhaustion disorder. International collaboration regarding the conceptualisation of chronic stress and fatigue is warranted to accelerate the growth of evidence.

To assess executive functions (EFs) in patients with body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) compared with healthy controls.

Adults diagnosed with BDD (n = 26) or OCD (n = 29) according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, and healthy controls (n = 28) underwent validated and computerized neuropsychological tests, spatial working memory (SWM), intra–extra-dimensional set shifting (IED), and stop signal task (SST), from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Test performance was compared between groups, and correlated with standardized symptom severity of BDD and OCD. Significance level was set to P < .05.

There were no statistically significant between-group differences on key outcome measures in SWM, IED, or SST. There was a weak positive correlation between symptom severity and test errors on SWM and IED in both OCD and BDD groups; increased clinical severity was associated with more errors in these tests. Furthermore, there was a negative correlation between symptom severity and SST in the BDD group.

Patients with BDD or OCD did not differ from healthy control subjects in terms of test performance; however, there were several statistically significant correlations between symptom severity and performance in those with BDD or OCD. More studies on EFs in BDD and OCD are required to elucidate if there are differences in EFs between these two disorders.